Rule changes

[biggestred 4,275]

So, the afl have said that each team must start at the centre bounce with 6 players inside each 50m arc. To reduce "congestion"

One would assume the penalty for a significant breach of this would be a free kick from the centre to the non offending team, given thats where the ball is at a centre bounce.

 

However, i reckon the following scenario is an absolute lock to happen in 2019 and make a mockery of the rule.

Team a kicks a goal with 45 seconds left in the last q to go, say, 2 points up.

Team b now needs to kick a goal inside 45 seconds to win, but team a are no longer able to just push players back, as team b would get a free.

But, what if team a said, ok, and just pushed all bar 4 players into the defensive 50?

Team b gets the free kick but are then heavily outnumbered in their forward line (as they cannot push players forward and must start 6 back), and now face an impossible task, despite having the ball.

Thoughts? am i nuts?

[Freddy Fuschia 661]

2 hours ago, biggestred said:

So, the afl have said that each team must start at the centre bounce with 6 players inside each 50m arc. To reduce "congestion"

One would assume the penalty for a significant breach of this would be a free kick from the centre to the non offending team, given thats where the ball is at a centre bounce.

 

However, i reckon the following scenario is an absolute lock to happen in 2019 and make a mockery of the rule.

Team a kicks a goal with 45 seconds left in the last q to go, say, 2 points up.

Team b now needs to kick a goal inside 45 seconds to win, but team a are no longer able to just push players back, as team b would get a free.

But, what if team a said, ok, and just pushed all bar 4 players into the defensive 50?

Team b gets the free kick but are then heavily outnumbered in their forward line (as they cannot push players forward and must start 6 back), and now face an impossible task, despite having the ball.

Thoughts? am i nuts?

What if the free kick is given inside 50 and the result is a goal?

[biggestred 4,275]

36 minutes ago, Freddy Fuschia said:

What if the free kick is given inside 50 and the result is a goal?

Is it?

[darkhorse72 1,724]

Have they said where the free kick would be taken from?  It could be the goal square.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,394]

12 hours ago, biggestred said:

So, the afl have said that each team must start at the centre bounce with 6 players inside each 50m arc. To reduce "congestion"

One would assume the penalty for a significant breach of this would be a free kick from the centre to the non offending team, given thats where the ball is at a centre bounce.

 

However, i reckon the following scenario is an absolute lock to happen in 2019 and make a mockery of the rule.

Team a kicks a goal with 45 seconds left in the last q to go, say, 2 points up.

Team b now needs to kick a goal inside 45 seconds to win, but team a are no longer able to just push players back, as team b would get a free.

But, what if team a said, ok, and just pushed all bar 4 players into the defensive 50?

Team b gets the free kick but are then heavily outnumbered in their forward line (as they cannot push players forward and must start 6 back), and now face an impossible task, despite having the ball.

Thoughts? am i nuts?

I assume once the free kick is paid, the 6-6-6 rule no longer applies, so team b could send its players forward. But your point is valid - team b won't have enough time to get their players forward to overcome the number disadvantage.

And even though I substantially agree with your premise, I'm not prepared to say you aren't nuts.

[Smokey 4,126]

Free kick starts at the centre square for 1 player in violation of the rule. Add an extra 25 metres toward goal for the non-offending team per other player in violation. 

Problem solved ... I guess

Gee footy is becoming convoluted when you need to think of mitigation strategies for new rules like this. 

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

25 minutes ago, Smokey said:

Free kick starts at the centre square for 1 player in violation of the rule. Add an extra 25 metres toward goal for the non-offending team per other player in violation. 

Problem solved ... I guess

Gee footy is becoming convoluted when you need to think of mitigation strategies for new rules like this. 

Given the way the ruck nomination rules have been exploited on occasion, it doesn't surprise me that these scenarios need to be thought about and planned for.

It's better than just blindly flinging rules in every year and hoping they achieve the desired outcome.

Of course they could just LEAVE IT ALONE, but that is perhaps the hardest thing for administration to achieve. 

Personally I don't think congestion was that much of an issue this year, and even when it did bog down games occasionally I don't think it was heavy enough to warrant a rule change to 'fix' it.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,394]

18 minutes ago, Bluey's Dad said:

Given the way the ruck nomination rules have been exploited on occasion, it doesn't surprise me that these scenarios need to be thought about and planned for.

It's better than just blindly flinging rules in every year and hoping they achieve the desired outcome.

Of course they could just LEAVE IT ALONE, but that is perhaps the hardest thing for administration to achieve. 

Personally I don't think congestion was that much of an issue this year, and even when it did bog down games occasionally I don't think it was heavy enough to warrant a rule change to 'fix' it.

Agree entirely with your last sentence. However, I might be basing my view on Melbourne games which were generally free-flowing. Perhaps games involving the lesser performing teams which I didn't see became unwatchable due to coaches demanding defensive tactics in an effort to minimise the size of their losses.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,394]

In his inimitable style, Titus O'Reilly has commented on the AFL Rule Changes in his summary of the Worst Ideas of AFL Season 2018 (and mentioned a few other things, too).

[biggestred 4,275]

2 hours ago, Smokey said:

Free kick starts at the centre square for 1 player in violation of the rule. Add an extra 25 metres toward goal for the non-offending team per other player in violation. 

Problem solved ... I guess

Gee footy is becoming convoluted when you need to think of mitigation strategies for new rules like this. 

I guess this is also the point- that the afl havent thought through scenarios like this that their rule changes may cause 

[Lord Travis 10,158]

15 hours ago, biggestred said:

So, the afl have said that each team must start at the centre bounce with 6 players inside each 50m arc. To reduce "congestion"

One would assume the penalty for a significant breach of this would be a free kick from the centre to the non offending team, given thats where the ball is at a centre bounce.

 

However, i reckon the following scenario is an absolute lock to happen in 2019 and make a mockery of the rule.

Team a kicks a goal with 45 seconds left in the last q to go, say, 2 points up.

Team b now needs to kick a goal inside 45 seconds to win, but team a are no longer able to just push players back, as team b would get a free.

But, what if team a said, ok, and just pushed all bar 4 players into the defensive 50?

Team b gets the free kick but are then heavily outnumbered in their forward line (as they cannot push players forward and must start 6 back), and now face an impossible task, despite having the ball.

Thoughts? am i nuts?

I'd hope our coaches instruct our players to do this in that scenario. Giving away a professional free kick to clog up space is a viable tactic.

It would also highlight to the AFL and rules committee how stupid the rule is that it can be deliberately taken advantage of to the detriment of the team being rewarded a free kick. 

We're lucky however that the 6-6-6 rule advantages us more than most other teams, as we have a dominant ruckmen and dominant ball winners. 2019 is going to be huge for us!

[tiers 2,761]

The 6-6-6 rule is a sacrilege and a violation against the beauty and spirit of our great game. Those who introduced this rule deserve to be castigated to the fullest extent by all believers in footy. A pox and a curse on the afl who are seemingly trying to take our game away from us.

That coaches and teams will game the rule and find numerous unpredictable or unconsidered methods of manipulation is a given. Imagine what Sheeds, Clarko, Barrasi or any former cunning backpockets would do.

Leave our great game alone. Been watching fox sports afl old games from before the intense involvement of the rules people and the game in the past was a thing of beauty and still watchable and enjoyable today.

 

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,394]

In the 6-6-6 configuration, is there anything stopping one of the 6 "mid" players, such as a nominal wingman, from starting just outside the 50 metre line at a place which could be called CHB, even though it's 55 metres from the opponent's goal. If so, would seem to make a mockery of the rule change.  

[Lord Travis 10,158]

28 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

In the 6-6-6 configuration, is there anything stopping one of the 6 "mid" players, such as a nominal wingman, from starting just outside the 50 metre line at a place which could be called CHB, even though it's 55 metres from the opponent's goal. If so, would seem to make a mockery of the rule change.  

My understanding is they will enforce an imaginary zone of sorts, and have to start in the traditional wing position on the edge of the centre square. Nothing to stop them just charging back to fill space though, and I assume many teams without dominant ruckman and inside mids will use that strategy and quickly flood back and negate/congest. The AFL creating this new rules to combat congestion are ultimately causing more congestion. Coaches and clubs will always find a way to employ new defensive strategies within the rules. And fair enough too. Bruise free aerial ping pong is boring. Bring on contested footy!

[tiers 2,761]

The 50m arc was introduced in the late 1980s to help the players and commentators judge distances and for all these years was not a part of the rules of the game. Now it is to become part of the rules like crappy sports like netball and hockey where whistle blowing is an essential element of the entertainment.

In our great game, free kicks were meant to be earned at the contest, not from silly little technical infractions like this. It was bad enough when the centre square was introduced in the 70s (although the logic for that was at least arguable), but recent rule changes like 50m for having a little toenail one grass blade over an imaginary line, interchange miscounts and this latest abomination, are destroying the beauty of our great game.

I can see 12 players in a Walls/Fitzroy style huddle at the line before a bounce ready to block for one player to escape and run or 12 players strung out like a moving fantasy of beads on the 50m arc or other schemes that I will divulge only to Goody.

It makes a mockery of our great game but will look like dynamic art when viewed from a drone camera perched above the ground. But it's not footy.

2020

Go dees

 

 

[Demon_spurs 1,658]

6 hours ago, Lord Travis said:

My understanding is they will enforce an imaginary zone of sorts, and have to start in the traditional wing position on the edge of the centre square. Nothing to stop them just charging back to fill space though, and I assume many teams without dominant ruckman and inside mids will use that strategy and quickly flood back and negate/congest. The AFL creating this new rules to combat congestion are ultimately causing more congestion. Coaches and clubs will always find a way to employ new defensive strategies within the rules. And fair enough too. Bruise free aerial ping pong is boring. Bring on contested footy!

Imaginary zones are like the imaginary free kicks that Nicholls paid to our opposition all year, although honestly who'd be an umpire with this mob in charge?

 

 I feel sorry for the umpires (not NIcholls though)

[doc roet 1,199]

The way its fukin goin, the players will need a pocket in their shorts, to hold a rule book to refer to, before they kick the friggen thing.